Ranking countries by their environmental

impact

Corey J. A. Bradshaw1,2, Xingli Giam3, Navjot S. Sodhi3

1THE ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE, University of Adelaide; 2South Australian Research & Development Institute3Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore

•> 4 million protists

•16600 protozoa

•75000-300000 helminth parasites

•1.5 million fungi

•320000 plants

•4-6 million arthropods

•> 6500 amphibians

•> 30000 fishes

•10000 birds

•> 5000 mammals

99 % of ALL species that have ever existed...

EXTINCTspecies lifespan = 1-10 M years

Ordovician (490-443 MYA)

Devonian (417-354 MYA)

Permian (299-250 MYA)

Triassic (251-200 MYA)

Cretaceous (146-64 MYA)

Anthropoceneextinction rate 100-10000× background

Crutzen 2002 Nature 415:23; Bradshaw & Brook 2009 J Cosmol 2:221-229© T

ianti

an Z

hang

, Goo

d50x

70.o

rg

Brad

shaw

et a

l. 20

09 F

ront

Eco

l Env

iron

7:79

-87

Brad

shaw

et a

l. 20

09 T

rend

s Ec

ol E

vol 2

4:54

1-54

8

Han

sen

et a

l. 20

10 P

NAS

doi:1

0.10

73/p

nas.

0912

6681

07

Bars

on e

t al.

2000

Lan

d Co

ver

Chan

ge in

Aus

tral

ia, B

ur R

ur S

ci

© A. Prokopec

•1,011,000 km2 lost 2000-2005 (3.1 %; 0.6 %/year)•highest in boreal biome (60 %)•humid tropics next (Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia)•dry tropics next highest (Australia, Brazil,

Argentina)•N.A. greatest proportional lost by continent•Nationally, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, DR Congo

•21 % of all known mammals•30 % of all known

amphibians•12 % of all known birds•35 % of conifers & cycads•17 % of sharks•27 % of reef-building corals

threatened with extinction

IUCN RED LIST OF THREATENED SPECIES www.iucnredlist.org

range (number of FAO Fishing Areas),• risk for sharks with small range size•similar for teleosts with slightly larger ranges

habitat • threat risk for reef sharks• and for pelagic teleosts

environmental temperature regime• risk for deepwater sharks• risk deepwater teleosts

Ecology-Life History

Field et al. 2009 Advances in Marine Biology 56:275-363

Human threats

fisheries interest• no influence for sharks or teleosts

game-fished • no influence for sharks or teleosts

dangerous to humans• decreased threat for dangerous sharks

Field et al. 2009 Advances in Marine Biology 56:275-363

Mesopredator Release• ecosystems unbalanced by reduction of higher

trophic-level predators exerting ‘top-down’ control on abundance of species occupying lower trophic levels

• based on earlier theory (in 1980s)

Soulé et al. 1988 Conserv Biol 2:75; Soulé & Crooks 1999 Nature 400:563

• dingo-cat-marsupial

• lynx-fox-hare

• shark-ray-scallop

Johnson et al. 2007 Proc R Soc B 274:341; Elmhagen et al. 2010 J Anim Ecol; Myers et al. 2007 Science 315:1846

Sodhi et al. 2008 PLoS One 3:e1636

Bradshaw et al. 2008 J Ecol 96:869-883

log human population density (km-2)

log

% fo

rest

rem

aini

ng (k

m-2

)Sodhi, Brook & Bradshaw 2007 Tropical Conservation Biology Wiley-Blackwell

© C. Sekerçioglu

Halpern et al. 2008 Science 319:948-952

deforestation, soil erosion, sediment & nutrient loading

destructive fishing practices

overfishing

invasive species and starfish outbreaks

bleaching

Pelagic

thre

sher

shar

k

Sliver

tip sh

ark

Grey r

eef s

hark

Tiger s

hark

Snagg

letoo

th sh

ark

Sicklef

in ho

und

shar

k

Tawny

nur

se sh

ark

Zebra

shar

k

Scallo

ped

ham

mer

head

Great

er h

amm

erhe

ad

Whit

etip

reef

shar

k

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5Fished reefsUnfished reefs

Shark species

Abu

ndan

ce (

shar

ks h

r-1)

Field et al. 2009 Fish & Fisheries 10:323-328

1. habitat destruction

2. over-exploitation

3. introduced species

4. extinction cascades

Diamond 1984 Extinctions Chicago University Press

Evil quartet

Broo

k et

al.

2008

Tre

nds

Ecol

Evo

l 25

:453

-460

1. habitat destruction

2. over-exploitation

3. introduced species

4. extinction cascades

5. climate change

Evil quintet

6. synergies

Evil sextet

Brook et al. 2008 Trends Ecol Evol 25:453-460

© Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

justification to maintain healthy ecosystems is intangible because it seems unrelated to personal well-being

• reduce desertification• maintain soils• crop pollination• seed dispersal• food provision• water purification• fuel provision• fibre provision• climate regulation• flood regulation• disease regulation• waste decomposition/detoxification• nutrient cycling• soil formation• primary production• pharmaceutical sources• cultural appreciation (aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational…)

• €50 billion lost/year• land-based ecosystem loss €545 billion by 2010

• > €14 trillion/year lost by 2050

Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI):The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target.

European Commission

€153 billion/year

fisheries: €50 billion/year

Bradshaw et al. 2007 Glob Change Biol 13:2379-2395

1990-2000• ~100,000 people killed• 320 million people displaced• total reported damages > US$1151 billion

•decades of warning

•human population 6.8 B; 9-10 B by 2050

•competition for resources – famine, wars

•loss of basic ecosystem services

•fundamental worldwide shifts in policy required

•identifying relative country degradation

–highlight nations needing assistance

–better-performing nations as model governance structures

City Development Index www.unchs.org

Ecological Footprint www.footprintnetwork.org

Environmental Performance Index epi.yale.edu

Environmental Sustainability Index sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu

Genuine Savings Index worldbank.org

Human Development Index hdr.undp.org

Living Planet Index www.panda.org

Well-Being Index www.well-beingindex.com

Environmental Impact Rank

Böhringer & Joachim 2007 Ecol Econ 63:1-8

•inability to describe complexity of ‘sustainability’

•not comprehensive

•mix environmental, economic and health data

•often subjective combinations, weightings, normalisation

•not available for large sample of nations

•not consistent

Environmental Performance Index epi.yale.edu

1.provide rank of proportional environmental impact

2.provide rank of total (absolute) resource use

3.examine concordance among measures of environmental impact within composite indices

4.determine correlation between ranks and existing indices of environmental performance;

5.test for correlations between ranks and population size, governance quality and wealth

6.test EKC hypothesis (impact nonlinearly related to per-capita wealth)

Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440

per capita prosperity

envir

onm

en

tal d

am

ageENVIRONMENTAL

KUZNETS CURVE

•natural forest loss2005-1990 D/ha

•natural habitat conversionhuman-modified landcover/total landcover

•marine captures1990-2005 fish, whales, seals/EEZ km

•fertiliser useNPK/ha arable land

•water pollutionbiochemical oxygen demand/total renewable water resources

•carbon emissionsforestry, land-use change, fossil fuels/km2

•biodiversity threatRed List threatened birds, mammals, amphibians/listed species

Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440

NFL NHC MC FU WP BT CE RANK

128 5 91 1 4 63 1 10.6

23 61 20 17 21 29 5 20.4

- 198 112 20 3 - 7 24.8

128 197 114 11 1 - 8 25.1

87 87 18 21 29 13 6 25.2

128 5 91 1 4 63 1 10.6

CONCORDANCE: Kendall’s W = 0.26

ENV EPI HDI

ENV -

EPI -0.210 -

HDI -0.220 0.698 -

GSI -0.250 - -

EF 0.090 - -0.670

CONCORDANCE: Kendall’s W = 0.25

Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440

1 Singapore 179 Cape Verde

2 Rep Korea 178 Cent Afr Rep

3 Qatar 177 Swaziland

4 Kuwait 176 Antig & Barb5 Japan 175 Niger6 Thailand 174 Grenada7 Bahrain 173 Samoa8 Malaysia 172 Tonga9 Philippines 171 Djibouti

10 Netherlands 170 Tajikistan11 Denmark 169 Bhutan12 Sri Lanka 168 Chad13 Indonesia 167 Vanuatu14 Israel 166 Mali15 Bangladesh 165 Kazakhstan16 Malta 164 Gabon17 China 163 Turkmenistan18 New Zealand 162 Lesotho19 Iceland 161 Suriname20 Honduras 160 Eritrea

“I anticipate that the anti-science crowd will be screeching and howling with indignation when they read this one.”

“This is such BS, China is WAY worse then the U.S.”

“This researcher is a waste ...”

“This article is crap.”

“Can we really depend on some study when the Chinese could have funded this or maybe some group who was angry at the US and Brazil for whatever? I highly doubt the accuracy of the findings. Looks like the Treehuggers are at it again.”

“Shame on you Australia !!! I guess your dying great Barrior [sic] reef is America's fault too!!!!”

“here we go again. I'm so frickin' sick of these watermelons (green on the outside, red (communist) on the inside) treehuggers. The only f*^king green I care about is made of paper and folds.”

1 Brazil

2 USA

3 China

4 Indonesia

5 Japan6 Mexico

7 India8 Russia9 Australia

10 Peru

11 Argentina12 Canada13 Malaysia14 Myanmar15 Ukraine

16 Thailand17 Philippines

18 France19 South Africa

20 Colombia

POPULATION

WEALTH

GOVERNANCE

+

impa

ct

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

Governance quality rank

Pro

po

rtio

nal

en

viro

nm

enta

lim

pac

t ra

nk

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

Gross National Income rank

Ab

solu

te e

nvi

ron

men

tal

imp

act

ran

k

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

Total population rank

Pro

po

rtio

nal

en

viro

nm

enta

lim

pac

t ra

nk

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

Population density rank

0 50 100 150 200

0

50

100

150

Population growth rank

Pro

po

rtio

nal

en

viro

nm

enta

lim

pac

t ra

nk

0 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

Gross National Income rank

A B

C D

- im

pact

+ im

pact

+ people - people

+ growth - growth

- im

pact

poorer wealthier

- quality + quality poorer wealthier

+ density - density

- im

pact

+ im

pact

E F

Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440

POP POPD PGR GNI GOV

POP - 0.7159 0.5601 <0.0001 0.0054

POPD 0.019 - 0.0125 0.1075 0.0086

PGR 0.030 -0.130 - 0.0003 <0.0001

GNI 0.622 0.084 -0.187 - 0.0020

GOV -0.145 0.137 -0.358 0.161 -

Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440

per capita prosperity

envi

ronm

enta

l dam

age

ENVIRONMENTAL

KUZNETS CURVE

Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440

1 10 100

0

50

100

150

l inear

quadratic

intercept

per capita PPP-adjusted GNI

Pro

po

rtio

nal

en

viro

nm

enta

lim

pac

t ra

nk*

1 10 100

0

50

100

150

per capita PPP-adjusted GNI

Ab

solu

te e

nvi

ron

men

tal

imp

act

ran

k*

- im

pact

+ im

pact

- im

pact

+ im

pact

poorer wealthier

poorer wealthier

A

B

Bradshaw et al. 2010 PLoS One 5:e10440

© Moronail.net

1.more direct measure of environmental impact than ‘sustainability’

2.purpose of index depends on its ultimate application–proportional better reflects performance relative to economic opportunity

–absolute better reflects country’s contribution to global environmental degradation

3.proportional-absolute correlation: citizens’ attitude reflected globally

4.Asian countries dominate for high impact

5.minor gains with increasing wealth overwhelmed (no EKC)

6.No leakage considered – wealth effects likely much larger

© WWF

corey.bradshaw@adelaide.edu.au

www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/corey.bradshaw

ConservationBytes.com

• Xingli GiamPrinceton University, USA

• Navjot S. SodhiNational University of Singapore